Tang Jie, Li Huijuan, Tang Weibing
Department of Pediatric Surgery, Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Department of Neonatology, Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Front Pediatr. 2021 Apr 27;9:667225. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.667225. eCollection 2021.
Non-pharmacologic auxiliary treatments have been considered crucial therapies for treating chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) during the past decades worldwide. Several treatment patterns are available, but their relative efficacy is obscure because there are no head-to-head randomized controlled trials, especially in children. We conducted this network meta-analysis to evalute the effectiveness of these therapies in improving defecation function based on their direct comparisons with standard medical care. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English from inception to October 2020, assessing the efficacy of auxiliary therapies (behavior therapy, physiotherapy, biofeedback, or anorectal manometry) in children with CIC. We extracted data for endpoints, risk of bias, and evidence quality. Eligible studies in the meta-analysis reported the data of a dichotomous assessment of overall response to treatment (response or not) or defecation frequency per week after treatment. The hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis was used in the study. We chose a conservative methodology, random effects model, to pool data which could handle the heterogeneity well. The relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous results, weighted mean difference (WMD) with related CIs was calculated. The included treatments were ranked to define the probability of being the best treatment. Seven RCTs (838 patients) met inclusion and endpoint criteria. Based on an endpoint of the absence of constipation (Rome criteria) with laxatives allowed, physiotherapy plus standard medical care (SMC) had the highest probability (84%) to bethe most effective therapy. When the treatment response was defined as an absence of constipation with not laxatives allowed, biofeedback plus SMC ranked first (probability 52%). Physiotherapy plus SMC ranked first when the endpoint was based on defecation frequency per week with laxatives allowed (probability 86%). Almost all auxiliary therapies are effective complementary therapies for treating CIC, but they needed to be used simultaneously with SMC. Nevertheless, because of the small number of eligible studies and their small sample sizes, the differences in treatment duration and the endpoints, large sample RCTs with long-term follow-up are required for further investigation.
在过去几十年里,非药物辅助治疗在全球范围内一直被视为治疗慢性特发性便秘(CIC)的关键疗法。有几种治疗模式可供选择,但由于缺乏直接对比的随机对照试验,尤其是在儿童中,它们的相对疗效尚不清楚。我们进行了这项网络荟萃分析,以评估这些疗法与标准医疗护理直接比较时在改善排便功能方面的有效性。检索了Medline、Embase和Cochrane Central数据库,查找从创刊至2020年10月以英文发表的随机对照试验(RCT),评估辅助疗法(行为疗法、物理疗法、生物反馈或肛门直肠测压)对CIC儿童的疗效。我们提取了终点数据、偏倚风险和证据质量。荟萃分析中的合格研究报告了对治疗总体反应(有反应或无反应)的二分评估数据或治疗后每周的排便频率数据。本研究采用分层贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。我们选择了一种保守的方法,即随机效应模型,来汇总能够很好处理异质性的数据。对于二分结果,计算了95%置信区间(CI)的相对风险(RR)。对于连续结果,计算了相关CI的加权平均差(WMD)。对纳入的治疗方法进行排序,以确定成为最佳治疗方法的概率。七项RCT(838例患者)符合纳入和终点标准。以允许使用泻药时无便秘(罗马标准)为终点,物理疗法加标准医疗护理(SMC)成为最有效疗法的概率最高(84%)。当将治疗反应定义为不允许使用泻药时无便秘时,生物反馈加SMC排名第一(概率52%)。当终点基于允许使用泻药时每周的排便频率时,物理疗法加SMC排名第一(概率86%)。几乎所有辅助疗法都是治疗CIC的有效补充疗法,但它们需要与SMC同时使用。然而,由于合格研究数量少且样本量小,治疗持续时间和终点存在差异,因此需要进行大样本、长期随访的RCT进行进一步研究。